dcfandomcom-20200222-history
DC Database talk:Team Template
Auto-Categorization Is there a way to have the Team Template auto-categorize the listed members and former members? --Roygbiv666 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :We're actually talking about this in the forums now, we'd just have to decide how we want to input the teams into the character's pages in uniform way. :--Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • • ) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Fields Could we add an alignment field and a wikipedia field to this? :- Billy Arrowsmith, 03:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Bump. :- Billy Arrowsmith, 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC) ::Sure. Done and Done. ::--Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • • ) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) AWESOME. Thanks again, Nathan. :- Billy Arrowsmith, 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Can we get some mention of the Distinguish fields in options, preferably adding a couple to the Empty Syntax (Standard Options) as well? The Paradox 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC) :You got it chief, :— Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • • ) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Would you make the "Alignment = " field become auto-categorizing? And can it be added to the Empty Syntax (Standard Options) since virtually every team has an alignment? The Paradox 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC) :Alignment was pointing to Category: } Characters in the info box, so I've fixed it to point to Teams now, and added the autocat at the bottom. I also fixed the standard options and will update the template button text. For some reason, the autocat was there, but commented out. I'll do the same for Marvel. :— Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • • ) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Quote Is there a reason the quote's under the TOC, rather than above it, like on character and issue pages? It's not really pretty. -- [[User:Tupka217|Tupka]]''217''[[User talk:Tupka217|'Talk']] 18:00, November 13, 2009 (UTC) Possible merger I'm putting an idea on the table for discussion. Hatebunny disagrees with me, so let's hear both side and vote. I think it's silly that we have a "Team Template" and an "Organization Template" instead of one unified "Group Template." I feel like it's an unnecessary inconvenience to have to maintain two templates that have practically the same focus. The obvious problem is that we should make a distinction between teams like the Justice League and companies like LexCorp. This would be solved by adding a new field, "GroupType," where you could enter "Team" or "Organization" or whatever. Maybe we could include "Duo" as an option for teams like Hawk and Dove that don't really fit into either category. I would be willing to personally convert every applicable page over to a new model by hand. Either way, I want to talk about majorly overhauling this template. - Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 17:31, April 12, 2014 (UTC) :I think that using the same template for the different types of page is needlessly complicated, when we could just have a separate template for LexCorp or Wayne Enterprises with fewer and more specific fields that are more tailored to a company than a group of heroes or bad guys, and convert the Team Template into a "group template", to cover all the stragglers. :A GroupType field could be implemented in a very rudimentary way to make some text pop up that says "It's this kind of group!", but that would leave users with a) too many unused fields to potentially screw up, b) the opportunity to put the wrong thing in that field, c) require longwinded instructions as to how to fill it out properly, à la Image Template. :A GroupType field could also be implemented in a much more complicated and effective way, with multiple contingencies upon contingencies dependent on whether that field is filled out (also à la Image Template), but, as with the image template, it would be a coding nightmare of code wrapped around code wrapped around code, which - ultimately - would amount to having one template doing two or three templates' jobs when we could just have two templates and not give a crap. Not to mention that a significantly altered template, to that degree, would require days of adjusting old templates. :It's more efficient to revamp one of the two templates to make it differ from the other than to try to code in accommodations for the very reason that they shouldn't be on the same template onto one of them. - Hatebunny (talk) 17:44, April 12, 2014 (UTC) ::I think I prefer the idea of having one template that encompasses all the types. I've run into situations where I'm not sure which template is more appropriate. I don't think there will be the issue instructing people how to use it that Hatebunny thinks there will be. Maybe I just don't understand all the fields and the issues involved with it. Does that make it worth the coding effort to get this to happen? I'm not sure. Kyletheobald (talk) 04:04, April 13, 2014 (UTC)